Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Yes, and a lot of countries do tax accrued wealth. It's taxed in such a way that most people would want to be in the position of being taxed on accrued wealth. Norway, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Italy... the list goes on. But, the concept that people who are well off. Like... those it applies to can life a perfectly happy life without any concern and better off than 99% of the world, and pay a tiny bit more. Still remain in the same situation... Hm. I'm not sure it is productive to explain this. It's the kind of thing that "makes sense", and the inverse is borderline morally bankrupt. So, to you it seems ridiculous. But, you would not trade a minor inconvenience to the few who have it better than good, and will still have it better than good, for a significant societal improvement on the whole.
I would say that it is political views like yours who "do not seem to get it".
The problem I have with taxing wealth is this. Let's say you start a company, it blows up and becomes the next Amazon or whatever. You own most of the company still, or at least a controlling share in it.
Should you be forced to sell away some of your ownership in your own company just because the market values that ownership and voting power to be worth billions? Personally I don't think so. There is a reason these big companies like Amazon, Apple, Tesla, etc can't exist outside of the US, the owner would be forced to sell away their company just to pay for taxes on money they don't have.
You have a much higher chance of becoming homeless than hitting the black swan lottery.
What does that have to do with anything? Should I only care about what's best for me, no matter how much it screws someone else?